Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Tattoos are for trash

These pictures of celebrities with imaginary tattoos should help illustrate how retarded and barbaric tattoos look on most people. Tattoos are best reserved for a) savages, b) soldiers, and c) sexually-trafficked women. They indicate an individual who is outside the civilized social order. The picture of Jackie Kennedy, in particular, is illustrative.

Disdain for tattoos is both an effective neg and a DHV too. One of the best negs I ever heard was when a friend of mine saw the giant panther newly tattooed across the back of an otherwise pretty girl at his school. She was wearing a sun dress that exposed it and he commented approvingly: "hey, great school spirit!" The look on her face was hilarious.

There is a reason they are called tamp stamps. Audrey Hepburn with tats becomes a too thin woman you would immediately suspect of having a serious drug habit, having an eating disorder, etc. Or maybe that is just me. No one would buy her as a lady of refinement and delicacy with those tats.

Expounding a little - I would not buy a house that was designed by an eclectic, I would not buy a vehicle that has obviously been re-painted, or an ATV with a snorkel added, or equipment that has been welded on - all of these things are signs that something is out of the ordinary.

And by "out of the ordinary" I do not mean that it is possible that is extraordinary. I mean that there could be a problem down the road. An ATV that has a snorkel spends a lot of time under water, a re-painted vehicle has had some work done for whatever reason, and a house designed and maintained by an eclectic is outside of what is considered standard workmanship.

I have met a few women that have the permanent band aid on their ankle. They are hiding their embarrassment at putting that lady-bug or hummingbird on when they were 18. The women that hide themselves under a blanket of ink, so much so that you cannot recognize them with out them, those are the ones you will have problems with down the road.

I'm actually kind of a fan of ink on other people, problem is, it only works on the very young, with perfect skin, for a limited time(this is true of most things about women actually). To me though, tattoos have an aesthetic quality I like while at the same time having a symbolic quality that very much throws a woman's character into suspect. As much as people talk about stereotyping, often people with sleeves and massive back tattoo's are batshit crazy and dysfunctional(I know this first hand from hooking up with a girl that had almost NO un-inked skin, very hot, very cray cray)

I gotta say thought as a JL nerd, the Wonder Woman one really offended me.

Bad as Hepburn looks there, she might actually be the best of the bunch, maybe because they didn't completely cover her. Most of them look utterly ridiculous. The Swayze one makes it all worth it, though, with "Pain don't hurt" on the arm. Can't go wrong with a Dalton quote.

Tattoos on girls are ubiquitous in these parts. It's very common to find a pretty, sweet-looking girl--only to discover some ink on her shoulder, back, or pubic area.

For an old-fashioned chap such as myself, it's rather off-putting.

I'm not against tattoos for religious reasons or any other reason. In fact, there are some fascist, religious, right-wing designs that I've seen that look good (for example, on some CasaPound activists in Italy, and Russian mafia). But tattoos just aren't for me.

The problem as I see it is that tattoos have become so common, in both senses of the word.

On the upside, tattooing is becoming so common that the absence of un-natural adornment can be a helpful marker that an attractive man/woman may also possess a strength of character and the will to resist the present degraded culture. This, in turn, makes life mate acquisition for the religiously oriented that much easier. : )

In England nearly all girls are fucking covered in them, and outright DEMAND men be too.

Balls to that, I don't need to cover myself in ink to fit in socially, my body is fine how it is. I'd like a nice, smooth untarred figure on a girl but nope, all covered in tattoos all the way up their arms, over their back etc, blergh.

Don't remember where/when I first heard/read this (only that it was before I joined the US Navy :)), but I've long agreed that tattoos principally serve as an easy means for the cops to identify the body after ...

Working at being the Gray Man is more than just a way to help get through Basic Training; not piling on the "art" fits right in, and these days seems more and more to be a subtle statement in it's own right.

Also here they often get "GRANDAD" or "MUM", or names of their numerous kids or boyfriends inscribed upon them. I have to laugh when I see a girl with multiple guy's names on them, so clear of an indicator.

The question always arises in my mind: "Did your mother or grandmother have tattoos?" (No.) Then this question: "Why do you think they did not? Were they just boring and unoriginal compared to you?"

One thing about them: She has actually become the turf of some creep in a tattoo parlor with a bone through his nose who she doesn't even know. "Marked" by him. His territory. I don't want a woman marked by some other man. Even her own father didn't have the right or power to alter her body! So that guy's pretty important! He should be installed in her hall for ancestors and family gods, or at least the wall full of important family personages. After all, he'll influence her whole life and probably end up causing marks on the bodies of her children and ancestors for generations, like some hairball caught in a lithographic printing press. Which is just one of the 38 reasons tattoos are signs of stupidity, especially on women.

What's worse is that Asian women seemingly has taken up this filthy habit in DROVES. And we're not talking cute little things either, we're talking tats that take up whole sides of the torso and such. Los Angeles is infected with this gross mentality that tattoos are awesome. Making it's way into the church too (people who accepted Christ after I have no qualms against at all, but for those who do it after, there is definitely some scarring from other things that cause them to ink themselves.)

Went to a water park last year with the kiddies. The amount of exposed, bloated, pock-marked, tattooed flesh made me ill. Get all the tattoo's you want - just keep em covered, and please don't think your integumentarial expression makes you unique. The reality is that by getting a tattoo you are simply identifying yourself as another lemming.

I have on occasion been called judgmental. My rejoinder is better that than no judgment at all. Do I insist that all women with tattoos have issues? No. But I have yet to have interaction with a woman that displayed them prominently that wasn't seriously messed up.

The problem with saying "outside the civilized order" is that I cannot think of a contemporary example of anything in the west which is either civilized or ordered.

Sturgis to Rapid City SD in the first week of August is both more ordered and civilized (in the classical sense) than any major coastal city (including freshwater). And the tattoos are better. And women are safer.

Yet there are those like Molotov Mitchell (WND video) who ignores the verse in Leviticus (he taped a retort after quoting Lev against gays). I can see how his tattoo might glorify him, but can't see how it glorifies God.

It goes to my objection against self-ownership. God, not me, owns me. I'm leasing my body. Just as i can't scratch something into my rental car without paying a penalty to have it restored, I can't scratch a permanent mark into my body.

I'm OK with tattoos- they're a fantastic first indicator of so many things- class, identity, decision-making ability, personal history... they're a good way to get a quick read that is reasonably accurate much of the time.

I'm a sailor. nth generation professional mariner, 1st one to make Master since the days of sail. I have 4 tattoos from my youth- none of which can be seen if I am in shorts and a t-shirt. Good advice from my dad. For me, I won't promote or see promoted a tatted-up kid, many of whom pass through as crew, fresh out of maritime colleges with 180 whole days' experience, covered in achors, swallows, dragons, etc. I've accidentally swallowed more seawater than they've sailed over, but their search for identity and community oversteps traditional bounds. Women with tattoos are another matter. Anyone can make a mistake, but there's no mistaking an intensive effort to stylishly be a member of a low-class herd. I'm guessing there's an age-related dichotomy here, though. Kids are so lost without a generation of fathers to guide them, they think inking themselves up is a substitute for wisdom born of life experience. Poor bastards. Tattoos still belong to soldiers, sailors, whores and convicts, but, then again, as Samuel Johnson said, "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea." I see tattoos as a misguided attempt to avoid the work involved in forging a masculine identity.

Back in the 1960s-70s it was a big deal for girls to let their armpit and leg hair grow long. Other women told them that male oppressors were trying to infantilize them by getting them to shave their hair. So far about 5-10 years hairy armpits and legs were the rule. Now all the young girls shave/wax their snatch. Go figure.

Then other women told them that brassieres were male oppression and they had to let their boobies swing free.

Then other women told them that tight skirts were male oppression intended to hobble them and prevent them from moving. Ditto high heels.

Women told them that being pregnant was not a "disease" ("Our Bodies Ourselves", natch) and they were being oppressed by being forced to stay in a hospital for 2-4 days after childbirth. Then, low and behold, a few years later they switched sides and decided that it was male oppression NOT to let them stay in the hospital for 2-4 days after giving birth.

Look. They know tats are a stupid fashion. Even Lilac and Datura agree. Their snarky, passive-agressive comments show their fundamental fear that they screwed up.

Hell, within ten years women are going to insist that Obamacare give them free tat removal services. But never, ever point out what silly herd-following geese they are, directly. If you really want to get to them, tell them how prole tattoos are. Point out some low class fat women and mention the "trailer trash tats" that the fatties have. That strikes at the heart of their eternal female status- and fashion-consciousness.

Tats aren't transgressive and hip anymore, they are prole. And that is exactly why girls will stop getting them. Tats are "positional goods" that now signal "trailer trash" or "stodgy middle-age women", Very soon now no young girl will touch them with a ten-foot pole.